Combinators: and_then
map()
was described as a chainable way to simplify match
statements. However, using map()
on a function that returns an Option<T>
results in the nested Option<Option<T>>
. Chaining multiple calls together can then become confusing. That's where another combinator called and_then()
, known in some languages as flatmap, comes in.
and_then()
calls its function input with the wrapped value and returns the result. If the Option
is None
, then it returns None
instead.
In the following example, cookable_v2()
results in an Option<Food>
. Using map()
instead of and_then()
would have given an Option<Option<Food>>
, which is an invalid type for eat()
.
#![allow(dead_code)]#[derive(Debug)] enum Food { CordonBleu, Steak, Sushi }#[derive(Debug)] enum Day { Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday }// We don't have the ingredients to make Sushi.fn have_ingredients(food: Food) -> Option<Food> {match food {Food::Sushi => None,_ => Some(food),}}// We have the recipe for everything except Cordon Bleu.fn have_recipe(food: Food) -> Option<Food> {match food {Food::CordonBleu => None,_ => Some(food),}}// To make a dish, we need both the recipe and the ingredients.// We can represent the logic with a chain of `match`es:fn cookable_v1(food: Food) -> Option<Food> {match have_recipe(food) {None => None,Some(food) => have_ingredients(food),}}// This can conveniently be rewritten more compactly with `and_then()`:fn cookable_v2(food: Food) -> Option<Food> {have_recipe(food).and_then(have_ingredients)}fn eat(food: Food, day: Day) {match cookable_v2(food) {Some(food) => println!("Yay! On {:?} we get to eat {:?}.", day, food),None => println!("Oh no. We don't get to eat on {:?}?", day),}}fn main() {let (cordon_bleu, steak, sushi) = (Food::CordonBleu, Food::Steak, Food::Sushi);eat(cordon_bleu, Day::Monday);eat(steak, Day::Tuesday);eat(sushi, Day::Wednesday);}
See also:
closures, Option
, and Option::and_then()